Boy! Does the Moonbat know how to put his foot in it? You bet he does.
On his blog - link in title - he does it continually!
He starts:
Are the climate change sceptics with no evidence just naturally gullible?
Point one: "Climate Change Sceptics". Who are the Climate Change Sceptics? I know most people I associate with are greatly sceptical of the "Science" of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) but are very aware that climate changes, that climate has changed since the beginning of time.
We know that there have been periods of warming and periods of cooling. We know that there have been Ice Ages and Inter-Glacials. We know that in the current interglacial that there has been warmer periods than the late twentieth century. The Minoan Warming, the Roman Warming, The Medieval Warming.
Even CRU's Phil Jones admitted that there was nothing unusual about the late twentieth century warming. Therefore no Climate Sceptic who I know could be called a Climate Change Sceptic.
On the other hand, the Alarmists wanted to erase the medieval warm period to show that the late twentieth century warming was unusual (Overpeck to Deeming) and so the fraudulent "hockey stick" graph was created. M & M showed that putting phone numbers from the Canadian phone book into the Hockey Stick code still produced - quel surpris! - a hockey stick. AND why the hockey stick? To show there is unusual warming in the late twentieth century. Denying the fact that climate changes!
The Alarmist, therefore, are the true Climate Change Deniers!
So, back to Monbiot's Heading - Are climate change sceptics with no evidence just naturally gullible? OR
Are the Alarmists, the true climate change deniers with no evidence just naturally gullible?
Point Two. No evidence?
Let's ask the Alarmists where is the evidence that AGW is caused by Carbon Dioxide. I have been asking this question for a decade. There is no evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emission are causing AGW.There is however evidence from the Vostok Ice Core sample to show that warming precedes rise in atmospheric CO2 by 800 +/-200 years.
So, I suppose we can ask: Are the Alarmists with no evidence just plainly gullible.
Showing posts with label Climate Change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Climate Change. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Catholics and Climate Change
According to a Post called: Challenging the climate sceptics By: Ellen Teague (Link in Title)
Posted: Wednesday, February 17, 2010. Sir John Houghton: "argues that Christians and other faith communities must keep up the pressure for more action on climate change at the next UN climate meeting in Mexico in December 2010. He suggests that many of the voices of scepticism have been orchestrated by vested interests, especially in the United States, with the intent of discrediting and silencing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
Sir John says the climate sceptics, (of whom I am one), "have been orchestrated by vested interests."
Now, I will admit here that I have no vested interest except for the good of humanity.
Sir John also is quoted as saying: "....with the intent of discrediting and silencing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." (IPCC).
Well, with all due respect, Sir John, We sceptics don't have to do a thing! The IPCC has been very efficient in discrediting itself.
Meanwhile, because atmospheric CO2 has increased, the world has been able to feed the increasing population. Sir John and the rapidly crumbling IPCC have been advocating a reduction in CO2 - a reduction in the world's ability to feed itself.
They also have been advocating planting bio-fuel in food crop fields and planting trees in fuel crop fields to create a carbon sink. Again, these people are reducing food crops to push their crazy unproven hypothesis that
a) the globe is warming (even one of their Lead authors admits that it isn't!)
b) CO2 is causing the warming. It has been proven that it isn't!
Posted: Wednesday, February 17, 2010. Sir John Houghton: "argues that Christians and other faith communities must keep up the pressure for more action on climate change at the next UN climate meeting in Mexico in December 2010. He suggests that many of the voices of scepticism have been orchestrated by vested interests, especially in the United States, with the intent of discrediting and silencing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
Sir John says the climate sceptics, (of whom I am one), "have been orchestrated by vested interests."
Now, I will admit here that I have no vested interest except for the good of humanity.
Sir John also is quoted as saying: "....with the intent of discrediting and silencing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." (IPCC).
Well, with all due respect, Sir John, We sceptics don't have to do a thing! The IPCC has been very efficient in discrediting itself.
Meanwhile, because atmospheric CO2 has increased, the world has been able to feed the increasing population. Sir John and the rapidly crumbling IPCC have been advocating a reduction in CO2 - a reduction in the world's ability to feed itself.
They also have been advocating planting bio-fuel in food crop fields and planting trees in fuel crop fields to create a carbon sink. Again, these people are reducing food crops to push their crazy unproven hypothesis that
a) the globe is warming (even one of their Lead authors admits that it isn't!)
b) CO2 is causing the warming. It has been proven that it isn't!
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Reply to Professor Adams
Professor Adams, being sceptical of scptics, has said In his view, it can be stated with confidence that climate change is happening...
Well, yes Peter. Climate change is happening, it was ever thus.
Prof. Adams noted that some of the skeptics have seemingly impressive credentials, but illustrated how nefarious their tactics can be by using a powerful analogy involving the statue of Venus de Milo:
"The scientist would say that the Venus de Milo is a statue of a woman, whereas the skeptic would say 'A woman has arms, and this statue has no arms; therefore, it's not certain that this is a statue of a woman, and it can't be proven as such until the arms are found.'"
OK, take the statue as a symbol of global warming. A woman has warmth, and this statue has no warmth; therefore, it's not certain that this is a statue of a global warming, and it can't be proven as such until the warmth is found.'"
Get rid of this stupid, deceptive title of Climate change and get back to the original global warming or is it that the warming scientists are against both warming and cooling.
Well, yes Peter. Climate change is happening, it was ever thus.
Prof. Adams noted that some of the skeptics have seemingly impressive credentials, but illustrated how nefarious their tactics can be by using a powerful analogy involving the statue of Venus de Milo:
"The scientist would say that the Venus de Milo is a statue of a woman, whereas the skeptic would say 'A woman has arms, and this statue has no arms; therefore, it's not certain that this is a statue of a woman, and it can't be proven as such until the arms are found.'"
OK, take the statue as a symbol of global warming. A woman has warmth, and this statue has no warmth; therefore, it's not certain that this is a statue of a global warming, and it can't be proven as such until the warmth is found.'"
Get rid of this stupid, deceptive title of Climate change and get back to the original global warming or is it that the warming scientists are against both warming and cooling.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Thomas L Friedman lost the Ball
In the New York Times op-ed piece by TL Friedman (which I know is only an opinion piece) he seems to have lost the plot. He correctly mentions the failures of cap-and-trade - but poo-poos it anyway. He then goes on to say:
STRATEGY Since the opponents of cap-and-trade are going to pillory it as a tax anyway, why not go for the real thing — a simple, transparent, economy-wide carbon tax?
His next main point:
MESSAGE Climate change is a real threat to a healthy planet Earth — the only home we have.
Well, I would strongly dispute that! In fact he is wrong there. The climate of the healthy planet Earth has been changing since the beginning of time. The continuously changing climate has not harmed the healthy planet Earth in the past and I'm sure it won't in the future.
Does he mean the scurrillous use by globalwarming alarmist of the term "climate change" when they realised that the Earth had stopped warming? They did this because the Earth had stopped warming!
STRATEGY Since the opponents of cap-and-trade are going to pillory it as a tax anyway, why not go for the real thing — a simple, transparent, economy-wide carbon tax?
His next main point:
MESSAGE Climate change is a real threat to a healthy planet Earth — the only home we have.
Well, I would strongly dispute that! In fact he is wrong there. The climate of the healthy planet Earth has been changing since the beginning of time. The continuously changing climate has not harmed the healthy planet Earth in the past and I'm sure it won't in the future.
Does he mean the scurrillous use by globalwarming alarmist of the term "climate change" when they realised that the Earth had stopped warming? They did this because the Earth had stopped warming!
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Who's Dumb? Dykstra is dumber
On the strangely labelled Mother Nature Network, Peter Dykstra shows his dumbness with a post titled:Media Mayhem: Deny-a-palooza. Some quotes:
"Yeah, folks, there's a chance climate change isn't for real. There's always a chance. "
Well, that's your first mistake, Peter. Climate does change, climate has been changing all through the course of history.
"There's always a chance that the mounting evidence, the computer models and long-term forecasts are wrong."
That's right, Peter. The computer models are wrong. In fact, if they start at a previous date in time, they can't even predict the present.
"In America, climate change science and climate change politics are two different things. Two decades of a one-sided torrent of peer-reviewed data hasn’t changed that."
Right, the IPCC is the reigning king of Climate science politics that has issued two decades of a one-sided torrent of peer-reviewed data.
Now here's a thought, Peter. Why don't you get along to the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change in New York and reduce your ignorance?
"Yeah, folks, there's a chance climate change isn't for real. There's always a chance. "
Well, that's your first mistake, Peter. Climate does change, climate has been changing all through the course of history.
"There's always a chance that the mounting evidence, the computer models and long-term forecasts are wrong."
That's right, Peter. The computer models are wrong. In fact, if they start at a previous date in time, they can't even predict the present.
"In America, climate change science and climate change politics are two different things. Two decades of a one-sided torrent of peer-reviewed data hasn’t changed that."
Right, the IPCC is the reigning king of Climate science politics that has issued two decades of a one-sided torrent of peer-reviewed data.
Now here's a thought, Peter. Why don't you get along to the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change in New York and reduce your ignorance?
Friday, March 6, 2009
Climate Change Denial - claim Idiots on FaceBook!
From: Spiked-online dated Wednesday 4 March 2009 by Brendan O’Neill
The idea that ‘climate change denial’ is a psychological disorder – the product of a spiteful, wilful or simply in-built neural inability to face up to the catastrophe of global warming – is becoming more and more popular amongst green-leaning activists and academics.
Insults from a group of people who unfortunatley haven't followed the latest science!
This weekend, the University of West England is hosting a major conference on climate change denial. The organisers say the conference will explore how ‘denial’ is a product of both ‘addiction and consumption’ and is the ‘consequence of living in a perverse culture which encourages collusion, complacency and irresponsibility’
Get real!
The idea that ‘climate change denial’ is a psychological disorder – the product of a spiteful, wilful or simply in-built neural inability to face up to the catastrophe of global warming – is becoming more and more popular amongst green-leaning activists and academics.
Insults from a group of people who unfortunatley haven't followed the latest science!
This weekend, the University of West England is hosting a major conference on climate change denial. The organisers say the conference will explore how ‘denial’ is a product of both ‘addiction and consumption’ and is the ‘consequence of living in a perverse culture which encourages collusion, complacency and irresponsibility’
Get real!
Thursday, March 5, 2009
NZ Prime Minister awake to Climate Change Hoax?
On the Scoop NZ Web site, NZ Prime Minister John Key is quoted as saying to Investigate Magazine that he wanted..
"to have flexibility so that if the science deteriorates and the climate change sceptics are right we have an ability to alter the impact on our economy".
Well, Mr Key, it's too late. The science has deteriorated and the climate change sceptics are right.
“As a result of learning of the Prime Minister’s comments, Greenpeace, one of the worlds leading NGOs in the climate change area, advised that it would not be participating further in the ETS Review Select Committee."
What a bonus. Not having to deal with the radical, human-hating Greens!
Hey, Mr Key, Looks like you are moving in the right direction! How about jumping ship and forming a NZ chapter of the (Australian) Climate Sceptics party. They can offer you (and any other person from outside Australia) an Associate Membership.
http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/
"to have flexibility so that if the science deteriorates and the climate change sceptics are right we have an ability to alter the impact on our economy".
Well, Mr Key, it's too late. The science has deteriorated and the climate change sceptics are right.
“As a result of learning of the Prime Minister’s comments, Greenpeace, one of the worlds leading NGOs in the climate change area, advised that it would not be participating further in the ETS Review Select Committee."
What a bonus. Not having to deal with the radical, human-hating Greens!
Hey, Mr Key, Looks like you are moving in the right direction! How about jumping ship and forming a NZ chapter of the (Australian) Climate Sceptics party. They can offer you (and any other person from outside Australia) an Associate Membership.
http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Want a Good Laugh?
The American Association for the Advancement of Science had Al Gore as Guest.
What an oxymoron! Al Gore and Advancement of Science.
The New York Times DotEarth Column reports that Big Al dropped a slide from his presentation. The slide blamed "global warming" for almost everything.
Now Mr. Gore is dropping the graph, his office said today. Here’s why.
Two days after the talk, Mr. Gore was sharply criticized for using the data to make a point about global warming by Roger A. Pielke, Jr., a political scientist focused on disaster trends and climate policy at the University of Colorado. Mr. Pielke noted that the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters stressed in reports that a host of factors unrelated to climate caused the enormous rise in reported disasters.
Will Al report back to the The American Association for the Advancement of Science and report that he was actually advancing phantasy - not science?
What an oxymoron! Al Gore and Advancement of Science.
The New York Times DotEarth Column reports that Big Al dropped a slide from his presentation. The slide blamed "global warming" for almost everything.
Now Mr. Gore is dropping the graph, his office said today. Here’s why.
Two days after the talk, Mr. Gore was sharply criticized for using the data to make a point about global warming by Roger A. Pielke, Jr., a political scientist focused on disaster trends and climate policy at the University of Colorado. Mr. Pielke noted that the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters stressed in reports that a host of factors unrelated to climate caused the enormous rise in reported disasters.
Will Al report back to the The American Association for the Advancement of Science and report that he was actually advancing phantasy - not science?
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
A parched, Scorched Story in the Australian
From an article in today's (18/2/09) Australian by CLIVE MCALPINE AND JUSTIN RYAN
1. If the Australian Government's climate policy remains unchanged, the devastating bushfires which swept Victoria on Saturday, February 7, will become more frequent.
As responsible journalists, on what do you base this statement?
2. Without urgent action to reduce global greenhouse emissions, the landscapes of south-eastern Australia will become drier and hotter and more prone to catastrophic fires.
As responsible journalists, on what do you base this statement? Co2 emissions promote plant growth! Won't plant growth promote more rain and therefore wetter rather than drier?
3. The Government's current policy response to climate change needs to do more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Why?
Native forests and woodlands moderate climate fluctuations by recycling moisture back into the atmosphere as well as cooling the land surface. The net effect is a cooler and more moist landscape.
Right! See response to #2 above.
Land and Water Australia recently funded joint research by the University of Queensland and the Queensland Climate Change Centre of Excellence to model the impact of historical land-cover change on Australia's climate. Their findings suggested it was too simplistic to attribute climate change solely to greenhouse gases.
Ah, some research quoted.
Like the IPCC Assessment Reports (as opposed to the backing details) all sorts of "could," "possibly," "might".....
and still no link to CO2 causing Global Warming
1. If the Australian Government's climate policy remains unchanged, the devastating bushfires which swept Victoria on Saturday, February 7, will become more frequent.
As responsible journalists, on what do you base this statement?
2. Without urgent action to reduce global greenhouse emissions, the landscapes of south-eastern Australia will become drier and hotter and more prone to catastrophic fires.
As responsible journalists, on what do you base this statement? Co2 emissions promote plant growth! Won't plant growth promote more rain and therefore wetter rather than drier?
3. The Government's current policy response to climate change needs to do more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Why?
Native forests and woodlands moderate climate fluctuations by recycling moisture back into the atmosphere as well as cooling the land surface. The net effect is a cooler and more moist landscape.
Right! See response to #2 above.
Land and Water Australia recently funded joint research by the University of Queensland and the Queensland Climate Change Centre of Excellence to model the impact of historical land-cover change on Australia's climate. Their findings suggested it was too simplistic to attribute climate change solely to greenhouse gases.
Ah, some research quoted.
Like the IPCC Assessment Reports (as opposed to the backing details) all sorts of "could," "possibly," "might".....
and still no link to CO2 causing Global Warming
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Climate change's impact on north country- Watertown
An error-filled article on Watertowntimes.com by Erika Barthelmess who made the following strange statements:
The scientific community is in agreement about two important facts. First, the global climate is changing, with the average temperature of the earth increasing;
Well, no, over the last century temperatures rose by approximatley 0.6ºc, however, for more than eleven years temperatures have been steady.
and second, the changes result from a human-caused increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Wrong again! Despite the IPCC trying to find a causal link for more than 20 years, one has not been found. A link however has been found with the Vostok Ice core samples which have shown that a rise in temperature brings on a rise in atmospheric CO2 but with a lag of 800 +/- 200 years.
Though a few skeptics try to debunk the fact of climate change, it is widely accepted in the scientific community.
Sorry - not a few, google petitionproject.org and see more than 31000 scientists in climate related fields do not accept the theory.
For information about climate change, readers can consult the expert and politically neutral Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Political Neutral. Tell them they're dreaming, son.
The scientific community is in agreement about two important facts. First, the global climate is changing, with the average temperature of the earth increasing;
Well, no, over the last century temperatures rose by approximatley 0.6ºc, however, for more than eleven years temperatures have been steady.
and second, the changes result from a human-caused increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Wrong again! Despite the IPCC trying to find a causal link for more than 20 years, one has not been found. A link however has been found with the Vostok Ice core samples which have shown that a rise in temperature brings on a rise in atmospheric CO2 but with a lag of 800 +/- 200 years.
Though a few skeptics try to debunk the fact of climate change, it is widely accepted in the scientific community.
Sorry - not a few, google petitionproject.org and see more than 31000 scientists in climate related fields do not accept the theory.
For information about climate change, readers can consult the expert and politically neutral Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Political Neutral. Tell them they're dreaming, son.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Professor: no evidence carbon dioxide was the major driver of climate change
From The Otago Daily Times: Monday 2 Feb, 2009 A Report by Rosie Manins:
"....Climate scientist Prof Christopher de Freitas was questioned on his evidence, which had been contested in the evidence of other climate witnesses called in the hearing. Prof Freitas, of the University of Auckland, said there was no evidence to suggest carbon dioxide was the major driver of climate change.
"Climate is not responding to greenhouse gases in the way we thought it might. If increasing carbon dioxide is in fact increasing climate change, its impact is smaller than natural variation. People are being misled by people making money out of this," Prof de Freitas said.
Who is making money from this? Well, Al Gore for one.
"....Climate scientist Prof Christopher de Freitas was questioned on his evidence, which had been contested in the evidence of other climate witnesses called in the hearing. Prof Freitas, of the University of Auckland, said there was no evidence to suggest carbon dioxide was the major driver of climate change.
"Climate is not responding to greenhouse gases in the way we thought it might. If increasing carbon dioxide is in fact increasing climate change, its impact is smaller than natural variation. People are being misled by people making money out of this," Prof de Freitas said.
Who is making money from this? Well, Al Gore for one.
The Groundhog named Gore by Alan Caruba
On Alan Caruba's blog, he writes
"The ability to hold two totally opposite thoughts in one’s head, a winter storm and imminent destruction by sizzling hot weather, is a kind of schizophrenia or just plain stupidity. In Gore’s case, it has a lot more with lining his pockets with millions of dollars in the sale of “carbon credits” purchased to continue emitting carbon dioxide, the gas that Gore insists will destroy the world.
Carbon dioxide is the gas on which all plant life on Earth depends for growth. Without CO2 every single piece of vegetation dies and we die with it because a lot of critters we eat are herbivores. Happily, humans exhale about two pounds of CO2 every day. Burning anything, including calories, produces CO2. Even if there is more CO2, it has little to do with climate change."
Pre-election President Obama said that, when elected, he would declare CO2 a "dangerous pollutant." No more bread, cakes, wine, beer. When will this stupidity end?
"The ability to hold two totally opposite thoughts in one’s head, a winter storm and imminent destruction by sizzling hot weather, is a kind of schizophrenia or just plain stupidity. In Gore’s case, it has a lot more with lining his pockets with millions of dollars in the sale of “carbon credits” purchased to continue emitting carbon dioxide, the gas that Gore insists will destroy the world.
Carbon dioxide is the gas on which all plant life on Earth depends for growth. Without CO2 every single piece of vegetation dies and we die with it because a lot of critters we eat are herbivores. Happily, humans exhale about two pounds of CO2 every day. Burning anything, including calories, produces CO2. Even if there is more CO2, it has little to do with climate change."
Pre-election President Obama said that, when elected, he would declare CO2 a "dangerous pollutant." No more bread, cakes, wine, beer. When will this stupidity end?
Sunday, February 1, 2009
BBC abandons 'impartiality' on warming
From the UK Telegraph - article by Christopher Booker
Last Updated: 6:19PM GMT 31 Jan 2009
After part sponsoring a global warming stunt with a mock up polar bear on an ice-berg in the Thames, and doctoring film of President Obama's Inaugural speech,their Newsnight's science editor, Susan Watts, was even more bizarre. It was no more than a paean of gratitude that we now at last have a president prepared to listen to the "science" on climate change, after the dark age of religious obscurantism personified by President Bush.
At last, after years when they could not speak openly on this subject, chirped Ms Watts, "scientists calculate that President Obama has just four years to save the world". She failed to explain (although she was later forced to clarify this on her blog) that the only scientist to say anything so silly was Dr James Hansen of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, whose utterances on climate change have lately become so wild and extreme that they have made him a laughing stock. (He was last week publicly disowned by his old boss Dr John Theon, who said that Hansen's unscientific claims had been an embarrassment to Nasa ever since he joined Al Gore in whipping up panic over global warming back in 1988.)"
http://talbyv.blogspot.com/2009/01/doom-4-years-left-last-chance-jim.html
In Australia, our equivalent ABC uses the same rules, recently excising Bill Kininmonth (William Kininmonth has a career in meteorological science and policy spanning more than 40 years. For more than a decade (1986-1998) he headed Australia's National Climate Centre with responsibilities for monitoring Australia's changing climate and advising the Australian government on the extent and severity of climate extremes) from a podcast and transcript of a broadcast.
Last Updated: 6:19PM GMT 31 Jan 2009
After part sponsoring a global warming stunt with a mock up polar bear on an ice-berg in the Thames, and doctoring film of President Obama's Inaugural speech,their Newsnight's science editor, Susan Watts, was even more bizarre. It was no more than a paean of gratitude that we now at last have a president prepared to listen to the "science" on climate change, after the dark age of religious obscurantism personified by President Bush.
At last, after years when they could not speak openly on this subject, chirped Ms Watts, "scientists calculate that President Obama has just four years to save the world". She failed to explain (although she was later forced to clarify this on her blog) that the only scientist to say anything so silly was Dr James Hansen of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, whose utterances on climate change have lately become so wild and extreme that they have made him a laughing stock. (He was last week publicly disowned by his old boss Dr John Theon, who said that Hansen's unscientific claims had been an embarrassment to Nasa ever since he joined Al Gore in whipping up panic over global warming back in 1988.)"
http://talbyv.blogspot.com/2009/01/doom-4-years-left-last-chance-jim.html
In Australia, our equivalent ABC uses the same rules, recently excising Bill Kininmonth (William Kininmonth has a career in meteorological science and policy spanning more than 40 years. For more than a decade (1986-1998) he headed Australia's National Climate Centre with responsibilities for monitoring Australia's changing climate and advising the Australian government on the extent and severity of climate extremes) from a podcast and transcript of a broadcast.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Anthropogenic Global Warming: The Greatest Fraud in History?
by James Lewis From Pajamas Media, January 30, 2009 on "An Honest Climate Debate."
Some Extracts:
"But what worries me most is that the credibility of science may never recover — and perhaps it shouldn’t. Credibility has to be earned, and once it’s squandered may never be recovered. By now far too many scientists have knowingly colluded in an historic fraud.... We are seeing political larceny here on a truly planetary scale. Why should scientists who’ve gambled their own reputations on this fakery ever be trusted again? They shouldn’t."
" Like most scientists I rarely judge what others do in their fields. And yet it’s been flamingly obvious for years now that the hypothesis of human-caused global warming violates all the basic rules and safeguards that protect the integrity of normal, healthy science. That’s why AGW (anthropogenic global warming) looks like a massive fraud, the biggest fraud ever in the history of science."
"If that’s true, anybody who cares about science should be outraged. Even if you don’t care about that ask yourself if you want your next medical exam to be honest. Or the next time you drive across a traffic bridge, do you want the engineering tests to be falsified? If scientific corruption becomes endemic, we risk losing one of the great jewels of our culture.
Some Extracts:
"But what worries me most is that the credibility of science may never recover — and perhaps it shouldn’t. Credibility has to be earned, and once it’s squandered may never be recovered. By now far too many scientists have knowingly colluded in an historic fraud.... We are seeing political larceny here on a truly planetary scale. Why should scientists who’ve gambled their own reputations on this fakery ever be trusted again? They shouldn’t."
" Like most scientists I rarely judge what others do in their fields. And yet it’s been flamingly obvious for years now that the hypothesis of human-caused global warming violates all the basic rules and safeguards that protect the integrity of normal, healthy science. That’s why AGW (anthropogenic global warming) looks like a massive fraud, the biggest fraud ever in the history of science."
"If that’s true, anybody who cares about science should be outraged. Even if you don’t care about that ask yourself if you want your next medical exam to be honest. Or the next time you drive across a traffic bridge, do you want the engineering tests to be falsified? If scientific corruption becomes endemic, we risk losing one of the great jewels of our culture.
Friday, January 30, 2009
O-Obama -Isn't this waste?
Stayed tuned we'll have a Pop-eye cartoon along in a minute - Roger Miller.
A quote from Roger's classic - Kansas City Star.
And speaking of Kansas City Star ( the Newspaper): From: Thomas McClanahan, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist:
"Another nugget from the stimulus bill passed by the House:
Backers of NASA sought $2 billion to help finance the costs of the next manned-space program. Instead...
NASA was allotted $600 million by the House - none of it for space-related activities. The biggest chunk of the money, $400 million, went to "put more scientists to work doing climate change research."
NASA backers are hoping the Senate will aim some money at NASA for what the agency exists to do: Explore space. "
More money wasted on the scam that is Anthropogenic Global Warming. O-O-O-Obama...What are you doing?
A quote from Roger's classic - Kansas City Star.
And speaking of Kansas City Star ( the Newspaper): From: Thomas McClanahan, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist:
"Another nugget from the stimulus bill passed by the House:
Backers of NASA sought $2 billion to help finance the costs of the next manned-space program. Instead...
NASA was allotted $600 million by the House - none of it for space-related activities. The biggest chunk of the money, $400 million, went to "put more scientists to work doing climate change research."
NASA backers are hoping the Senate will aim some money at NASA for what the agency exists to do: Explore space. "
More money wasted on the scam that is Anthropogenic Global Warming. O-O-O-Obama...What are you doing?
Is Penny Wong or Right (3)
On ABC (Australia) Rural, Penny Wrong...er Wong had this to say
"Meanwhile, Senator Wong says the heatwave gripping south-east Australia is part of what scientists predicted would happen.
Temperatures have soared into the mid-40s across Victoria and South Australia, and the hot weather is forecast to continue for the rest of the week."
In South Australia it is the hottest for 70 years! Back to the 1930's which NASA's GISS has said was the hottest decade in the last 100 years!
"Eleven of the hottest years in history have been in the last 12..."
Really, Penny, when Dr. R.K. Pachauri head of the IPCC made the same statement, he had to retract it!
And following on from my post Is "Penny Wong or Right (2)" where she said on 4BC radio "and... and... and I... to be honest with you.. think that most Australians do have a view that this (AGW) is real ..." a poll in the Australian newspaper as at today's date records: Are the heatwaves in Victoria and South Australia evidence of global warming?
Yes 8%
No 70%
Don’t know 23%
Wong...er Wrong again, Pen!
"Meanwhile, Senator Wong says the heatwave gripping south-east Australia is part of what scientists predicted would happen.
Temperatures have soared into the mid-40s across Victoria and South Australia, and the hot weather is forecast to continue for the rest of the week."
In South Australia it is the hottest for 70 years! Back to the 1930's which NASA's GISS has said was the hottest decade in the last 100 years!
"Eleven of the hottest years in history have been in the last 12..."
Really, Penny, when Dr. R.K. Pachauri head of the IPCC made the same statement, he had to retract it!
And following on from my post Is "Penny Wong or Right (2)" where she said on 4BC radio "and... and... and I... to be honest with you.. think that most Australians do have a view that this (AGW) is real ..." a poll in the Australian newspaper as at today's date records: Are the heatwaves in Victoria and South Australia evidence of global warming?
Yes 8%
No 70%
Don’t know 23%
Wong...er Wrong again, Pen!
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Is Penny Wong or Right (2)
Penny Wong on 4BC:
"The consensus science is that climate change is occurring."
Well, sorry, Penny, Science doesn't work on "Consensus." and if it did, look at petitionproject.org and the more than 31,000 scientists that do not believe in AGW. I'll take your consensus and raise you...
"What I say is, have a look at what the IPCC said – that is not a radical group…"
Pardon, that biased and disgraced POLITICAL body???
When asked about the 31000 of the petition project, she, as usual dodged the question and answered "and... and... and I... to be honest with you.. think that most Australians do have a view that this is real ..."
Have you seen recent polling, Penny... oh yes, of course you have. Don't tell porkies!
"Are you willing to take the risk in terms of the reef, in terms of all of the economic impact of climate change. We see this as an economic responsibility issue."
I say- Ms Wong, Are YOU willing to initiate a CRIPPLING carbon (Dioxide) tax (aka ETS- aka Penny's new HAT [hot air tax])
on an unproven theory which is slowly sliding into oblivion?
"The consensus science is that climate change is occurring."
Well, sorry, Penny, Science doesn't work on "Consensus." and if it did, look at petitionproject.org and the more than 31,000 scientists that do not believe in AGW. I'll take your consensus and raise you...
"What I say is, have a look at what the IPCC said – that is not a radical group…"
Pardon, that biased and disgraced POLITICAL body???
When asked about the 31000 of the petition project, she, as usual dodged the question and answered "and... and... and I... to be honest with you.. think that most Australians do have a view that this is real ..."
Have you seen recent polling, Penny... oh yes, of course you have. Don't tell porkies!
"Are you willing to take the risk in terms of the reef, in terms of all of the economic impact of climate change. We see this as an economic responsibility issue."
I say- Ms Wong, Are YOU willing to initiate a CRIPPLING carbon (Dioxide) tax (aka ETS- aka Penny's new HAT [hot air tax])
on an unproven theory which is slowly sliding into oblivion?
James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic
From Marc Morano.
"Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.” Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears."
“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,” Theon wrote."
Another Nail in the AGW coffin.
"Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.” Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears."
“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,” Theon wrote."
Another Nail in the AGW coffin.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Stern Appointed Climate Change Envoy: Just for Money?
Via the Washington Post: Article by Garance Franke-Ruta:
This morning, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced that (Todd) Stern will be the special envoy for climate change.
"With the appointment today of a special envoy, we are sending an unequivocal message that the United States will be energetic, focused, strategic and serious about addressing global climate change and the corollary issue of clean energy," Clinton said at the announcement.
"Containing climate change will require nothing less than transforming the global economy from a high-carbon to a low-carbon energy base. But done right, this can free us from our dependence on foreign oil and become a driver for economic growth in the 21st century," Stern said after Clinton spoke.
How about proving a causal link between carbon (Dioxide) and Climate Change before going off half cocked!
Scientists analysing the Vostok Ice core samples have shown rise in CO2 FOLLOWS global warming by 800 years +/- 200 years.
Recent Satellite Global temperature records have shown that, despite atmospheric Co2 rising average global temperatures have been falling.
Are you going to look like gooses as temperatures keep going down.
Is it just for the money, Mr Stern?
This morning, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced that (Todd) Stern will be the special envoy for climate change.
"With the appointment today of a special envoy, we are sending an unequivocal message that the United States will be energetic, focused, strategic and serious about addressing global climate change and the corollary issue of clean energy," Clinton said at the announcement.
"Containing climate change will require nothing less than transforming the global economy from a high-carbon to a low-carbon energy base. But done right, this can free us from our dependence on foreign oil and become a driver for economic growth in the 21st century," Stern said after Clinton spoke.
How about proving a causal link between carbon (Dioxide) and Climate Change before going off half cocked!
Scientists analysing the Vostok Ice core samples have shown rise in CO2 FOLLOWS global warming by 800 years +/- 200 years.
Recent Satellite Global temperature records have shown that, despite atmospheric Co2 rising average global temperatures have been falling.
Are you going to look like gooses as temperatures keep going down.
Is it just for the money, Mr Stern?
Monday, January 26, 2009
Despite the hot air, the Antarctic is not warming up
Christopher Booker in the UK telegraph says "A deeply flawed new report will be cited ad nauseam by everyone from the BBC to Al Gore."
Antarctica has long been a major embarrassment to the warmists. Al Gore and co may have wanted to scare us that the continent which contains 90 per cent of all the ice on the planet is heating up, because that would be the source of all the meltwater which they claim will raise sea levels by 20 feet. However, to provide all their pictures of ice-shelves "the size of Texas" calving off into the sea, they have had to draw on one tiny region of the continent, the Antarctic Peninsula – the only part that has been warming.
Actually they had to rely on fake computer generated footage -http://talbyv.blogspot.com/2009/01/gore-fraud-fake-footage-in-inconvenient.html
One of the first to express astonishment was Dr Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and a convinced believer in global warming, who wryly observed "it is hard to make data where none exists". A disbelieving Ross Hayes, an atmospheric scientist who has often visited the Antarctic for Nasa, sent Professor Steig a caustic email (http://icecap.us/index.php/go/they-said-it/with_statistics_you_can_make_numbers_go_to_almost_any_conclusion_you_want_i/) ending: "with statistics you can make numbers go to any conclusion you want. It saddens me to see members of the scientific community do this for media coverage."
But it was also noticed that among the members of Steig's team was Michael Mann, author of the "hockey stick", the most celebrated of all attempts by the warmists to rewrite the scientific evidence to promote their cause.
The World was much warmer during the Mediaeval Warm Period. Dr David Deming has confirmed to me that he was told in an email from one of the IPCC lead authors that they had to get rid of the MWP. Subsequently Mann, Bradley and Hughes produced the fraudulent "hockey stick." Steve McIntyre fed in telephone numbers and it still produced the same graph!
Antarctica has long been a major embarrassment to the warmists. Al Gore and co may have wanted to scare us that the continent which contains 90 per cent of all the ice on the planet is heating up, because that would be the source of all the meltwater which they claim will raise sea levels by 20 feet. However, to provide all their pictures of ice-shelves "the size of Texas" calving off into the sea, they have had to draw on one tiny region of the continent, the Antarctic Peninsula – the only part that has been warming.
Actually they had to rely on fake computer generated footage -http://talbyv.blogspot.com/2009/01/gore-fraud-fake-footage-in-inconvenient.html
One of the first to express astonishment was Dr Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and a convinced believer in global warming, who wryly observed "it is hard to make data where none exists". A disbelieving Ross Hayes, an atmospheric scientist who has often visited the Antarctic for Nasa, sent Professor Steig a caustic email (http://icecap.us/index.php/go/they-said-it/with_statistics_you_can_make_numbers_go_to_almost_any_conclusion_you_want_i/) ending: "with statistics you can make numbers go to any conclusion you want. It saddens me to see members of the scientific community do this for media coverage."
But it was also noticed that among the members of Steig's team was Michael Mann, author of the "hockey stick", the most celebrated of all attempts by the warmists to rewrite the scientific evidence to promote their cause.
The World was much warmer during the Mediaeval Warm Period. Dr David Deming has confirmed to me that he was told in an email from one of the IPCC lead authors that they had to get rid of the MWP. Subsequently Mann, Bradley and Hughes produced the fraudulent "hockey stick." Steve McIntyre fed in telephone numbers and it still produced the same graph!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)